McDermott was referring to the potential for negotiating a bigger tv deal, and he speaks a grain of truth. TV want more viewers, which could be attracted by international city clubs, hence a better tv deal. As I’ve said many times on here, Sky are not interested in the regular fans with travel or work issues, only armchair fans. But suppose BT, Sky, Amazon, etc were competing for a deal...

In general here are the main points I see against Toronto and this is why I disagree with them:

Problem: They won't bring many away fans
Response: If clubs rely on away fans to survive they don't deserve to survive, and it's not like Huddersfield or Salford bring many away fans.

Problem: It's a British/European league
Response: Well now it's a European and North American League. Get over it.

Problem: The existence of Toronto, Catalans, and possibly Ottawa, New York, etc in future is threatening clubs with long histories like Featherstone.
Response: Those clubs have had a long time to become economically strong members of Rugby Leagues top division.

Problem: Toronto give away free tickets to get their numbers up
Response: So What? they're growing the game, a child given a free ticket today is a season ticket holder in 10 years. It's called investment and it's smart.

Problem: The RFL shouldn't be spending money on Toronto, they should spend it on the heartlands.
Response: The RFL hasn't spent a penny on Toronto, in fact Toronto paid the RFL to enter the league. In contrast; The RFL spent money buying Bradfords stadium to stop them going bust, and they still went bust.

Problem: The travel distances are too far, teams can't afford it and no way can Toronto maintain it.
Response: Right now Air Transat are sponsoring Toronto and paying flight costs for away teams to visit. The distance covered is not actually unusual in sports - for example Super Rugby has teams in Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, every North American sport sees west coast teams playing east coast teams (distances about the same as Toronto to Yorkshire). That said I do think that the lack of money in Rugby League does mean this might not be viable long term.

That's my opinion anyway.

I don't know if this Toronto experiment will be successful in the long run, I don't know if it's economically viable. What I do know is that Rugby League in the UK is currently a minority sport, who's biggest team can't even half-fill a 25,000 seat stadium most weeks. So as a sport we're not exactly gambling everything by letting a wealthy investor raise a team in Toronto and try to grow the game in a potentially very lucrative market.

I'd like there to be a professional North American league eventually, but right now the quickest way to grow the game there seems to be investing in teams joining an extant league. Maybe if Ottawa and New York are successful we can eventually look to creating a "North American division". I don't know.

But people being negative about it and whinging about Toronto being in the league, it all seems very parochial to me.

To defend the RFL slightly, it wasn't them that failed with Crusaders - it was the owners pulling the plug financially after just a few years. They were getting decent crowds before then and even brought a good following to Cas. Required heavy investment, as do all start-up clubs in a new area and time.

Which is why the Toronto adventure is slightly different. Clearly they're happy to fund the investment (something like £14m has been invested already) to build this up.

Bradford failed down to their owners. There's no way a club with 10,000+ fans should be getting into financial trouble or be unsustainable.

Gateshead/Newcastle is clearly a strong area to pursue and Newcastle Thunder have good owners in Newcastle Falcons to be able to have natural growth. The historical Gateshead side, it could be argued, bailed out Hull FC, which set it back a good few years.

Sheffield is a footballing city, same with London. The only way these teams will see any kind of growth potential is through huge investment and success.

The only way that can be done is by giving them a leg up, which as we've seen from this thread, some rugby league fans are against any expansion and/or differentiation of the rules to support these sides. The RFL also doesn't have the resources to underwrite the costs.

Not too sure on the dynamics of what the NRL did for Melbourne Storm but my understanding is that they had a higher salary cap and possibly even got funded by the other NRL clubs.

Could you imagine 11 other Super League clubs taking a stake in say Newcastle Thunder and allowing them a higher salary cap? No, me either.

The bottom line is that all those expansion attempts and a number of others failed with the only real success being in the Rugby League heartlands in the South of France
In terms of the NRL, whatever they did in Melbourne, my understanding is that they did nothing to develop the game in Perth because of the travelling distances involved .
I’m not fundamentally against expansion, I just have no faith in it working due to our abysmal track record

Toronto in Super League!
As many l want Rugby League to expand and also thrive in the so called heartlands of the M62 corridor and have little faith in those who administer our sport.
The Toronto experiment probably provided Rimmer and Co with some lucrative all expenses fact finding missions.
Will it fill stadia in the UK l doubt it.
Will it add to the carbon footprint?

Problem: The travel distances are too far, teams can't afford it and no way can Toronto maintain it.
Response: Right now Air Transat are sponsoring Toronto and paying flight costs for away teams to visit. The distance covered is not actually unusual in sports - for example Super Rugby has teams in Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, every North American sport sees west coast teams playing east coast teams (distances about the same as Toronto to Yorkshire). That said I do think that the lack of money in Rugby League does mean this might not be viable long term.

You are correct in stating Transat pay or paid last season the air fare travel expenses for clubs to and from Canada but I can tell you that it wasnt as simple as that.
When Hull KR played them over there this was what they had to do. Pay for their players for an overnight stay in a Manchester Hotel on the Wednesday night for an early morning flight. The return flight left HKR the problem of transporting the players and staff back to their homes at the clubs expense, as the Transat flight was to Glasgow. Also only a certain number of staff had a free flight,( Chamionship clubs only travelled with only people that were needed as they had to pay extra over a certain number of personell) Super league clubs will surely be taking over more staff than what Championship clubs did and will be costly, unless the Super League have an extra expenses in place for the clubs.
My own view is the same as yours, and clubs have to accept they have to up their anti and get ready for change. Come on Cas get that new ground up and running or we will be also rans same as a few more.

I pre looked for June and it was about £300 flights and hotels ranged depending how nice you want it.

Im guessing the expensive weeks would be around Easter (2nd weekend in April i think next year) Canada Day (early July) and Labour Day (early September). They could have a bank holiday weekend in May but not sure when.

according to an interview with their ceo they won't play a game at home until 15th april. he also says they won't play any thursday or friday night games in toronto so he must have already been told that.
mcdermott says he thinks it will be at least 15 years before they will have a home grown player who is super league standard.

according to an interview with their ceo they won't play a game at home until 15th april. he also says they won't play any thursday or friday night games in toronto so he must have already been told that.
mcdermott says he thinks it will be at least 15 years before they will have a home grown player who is super league standard.

As long as they don’t expect all their home games to be scheduled after 15th April and they can find a suitable alternative venue, that’s their problem. We cannot have them demanding a back-ended home fixture list. That means not all teams will travel to Toronto, but that’s up to them.
Not sure what the broadcast agreements are, but I’m not comfortable with them having their home games protected from Thursday/Friday nights. That just means it will happen to the other teams more often, and it’s bad enough as it is.

They will play their loop fixtures first so all teams only have to travel to Toronto once each.

The article says they are looking at double headers for the first few home games.

Thurs/Fri night games is a non-starter for the fact that Toronto is 6 hours beyond or so. Means it will be 1-2am in the UK fans. Won’t be good for Sky or for fans.

The compromise for me is that Toronto TV games are chosen for Saturday and the Thurs night games are dropped that week.

If they dont play thursdays or fridays then they have an advantage of a longer turn around where other clubs who have to play thursdays and fridays might only get a 4 day turn around so stright away they have an advantage over other clubs which stright away makes it abit unfair.rfl shouldnt move the goal post to suit torronto,torronto should neet everything the other sl clubs meet ie play thursdays and fridays